II. MECHANISMS FOR COOPERATION

The US supports the formation of organizations or bodies for the
establishment of conservation regimes in specific geographic
regions. The US supported the FAO's initiative to conclude a
legally-binding instrument on the flagging of vessels. Sweden said
that close cooperation between all States has to be
institutionalized and management must not be ad hoc but ongoing. To
give these regional and subregional organizations the necessary
strength, they should have compulsory membership, firm
international structures and financing from member States.

The Philippines agreed with Sweden that management of fishery
resources is a permanent activity and an institutionalized
mechanism should be set in place. Regional cooperation might be
geographic or established according to the migratory species. The
Russian Federation said that regional cooperation is the most
adequate and appropriate way to resolve practical problems of
conservation. This is most effective through agreements at the
global level. The rights of coastal States should be strengthened
and negotiations should begin to formulate objectives, timetables
and solutions. Until then, if threatened, a coastal State can take
unilateral temporary measures to preserve fish stocks.

Gabon warned against the proliferation of regional and subregional
organizations. Tunisia said that existing organizations need to be
strengthened. The EC said that regional and subregional cooperation
is important and that organizations should be open to all
interested States. Developing countries should receive preferential
treatment. States have the right not to accede to organizations,
but also have the right and duty to cooperate. Japan said that in
existing regional fishery organizations, States should participate
on an equal footing. It is the responsibility of both fishing
States and coastal States to share in the financing of those
organizations.

The Republic of Korea said that in II(b)(iii), membership should be
open to all States on an equal basis. In II(b)(ix), new entrants to
regional organizations could be of two types -- with or without
previous fishing records -- but each could be given an equal
opportunity to utilize fishing resources. Sri Lanka said that there
should be direct cooperation through existing governmental regional
or interregional organizations. Peru commented on II(a) (direct
cooperation), stating that provisions should include alternative
mechanisms. Norway said that in II(a)(iii) the objective of the
consultations should be enlarged not only to agree on conservation
measures but also on management, surveillance, control and
enforcement. Norway also stressed the importance of II(b)(viii) on
encouraging nonparties to join regional organizations and II(b)(x)
on new entrants.

Argentina said that organizations should be strengthened through
existing mechanisms. Peaceful settlement of disputes, assistance to
developing countries, transparency, and open-endedness should be
elements in regional organizations. Trinidad and Tobago said that
institutionalized cooperation is the preferable option and that ad
hoc consultations are useful where there are no institutions.
Assistance should be given in establishing subregional agreements
where they do not exist.

In II(b)(xi) Japan said that due consideration should be given to
the situation of developing countries. Developed countries should
transfer fishing technology to developing countries. Chile said
that technical assistance should be provided for developing
countries and that cooperation involves monitoring, control, and
enforcement.

On II(d), Korea does not object to assisting developing States, but
they could become new entrants. So, on the one hand, we would be
helping them to develop and on the other hand we would be trying to
prevent their joining. This is a problem that needs to be solved.
On II(b)(iv), Korea said if conservation negotiations fail,
unilateral action is permitted under the 1958 Convention. However,
Article 89 of the 1982 Convention binds the States to negotiation.

Sierra Leone favors institutionalized cooperation with provision
for ad hoc working groups to plan and strengthen programmes. Sierra
Leone said in its position paper that the coastal States should be
allowed to collect license fees from vessels fishing in the high
seas adjacent to their EEZs. These fees could be given to the
regional bodies.

Malaysia agreed with the Chair's document but said it is not
sufficient to say what to do or not to do. Regarding II(b)(viii),
the ASEAN experience is a good example of cooperation, even with
non-member states. The EC said the basis of the obligation to
cooperate should be different for straddling stocks and for highly
migratory stocks, so two different articles should address the
problem. In II(b)(vi), a share of financing can be based on either
catch figures or correcting GNP figures. WWF said research carried
out by regional organizations should not be limited to single
species studies but more of an ecosystem approach. India favors
institutionalized consultation on mechanisms for cooperation. In
II(b), coastal States should have special interests because of the
dependence of the coastal communities on these species. In
II(b)(vi), financing should be based on per capita rather than GNP.